Our Project

What does it mean to progress in, or “get better at,”
argumentation in science?

To answer this question, we researched how well students performed on
assessment tasks that test different levels of complexity of argumentation
in science. Our assessments were administered over four years to 1,000+
middle school students in a large school district in the San Francisco Bay
Area. Most of the assessment items are about physical behavior of matter,
and are designed for use with middle school or early high school students.
The tasks assess students’ ability to both construct and critique scientific
arguments. The table/map below represents the findings of the project: a
learning progression for argumentation in science. The complexity of
argumentation increases from the top to the bottom. The video describes the
progression in more detail.

Learning Progression for Argumentation in Science

Level

Constructing

Critiquing

Description

Representation of Elements

0

No evidence of facility with argumentation.

0a

Stating a Claim

Student states a relevant claim.

0b

Identifying a claim

Student identifies another person’s claim.

0c

Providing evidence supporting a claim

Student supports a claim with a piece of evidence.

1a

Constructing reasoning that links claim and evidence

Student constructs explicit reasoning that links their claim to evidence.

1b

Identifying reasoning

Student identifies the reasoning provided by another person.

1c

Constructing a complete argument

Student makes a claim, selects evidence that supports that claim, and explains the connection between the evidence and claim using reasoning.

1d

Providing an alternative counter argument

Student offers a counterargument as a way of rebutting another person’s claim.

2a

Providing a counter-critique

Student critiques another’s argument. Fully explicates the claim that
the argument is flawed and justification for why that argument
is flawed.

2b

Constructing a one-sided comparative argument

Student makes an evaluative judgment about the merits of two competing
arguments and makes an explicit argument for the value of one argument.
No reasoning for why the other argument is weaker.

2d

Providing a two-sided comparative argument

Student makes an evaluative judgement about two competing arguments and
makes an explicit argument (claim + justification) for why one argument
is stronger and why the other is weaker (claim + justification).

2e

Constructing a counter claim with justification

This progress level marks the top anchor of our progress map. Student
explicitly compares and contrasts two competing arguments, and also
constructs a new argument in which they can explicitly justify why it is
superior to each of the previous arguments.